JFUE 987

Fuel 78 (1999) 47–54

Mercury concentration in coal—unraveling the puzzle

B. Toole-O’Neil a, S.J. Tewalt b, R.B. Finkelman b,*, D.J. Akers c
a
Electric Power Research Institute, PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, CA 94303-0813, USA
b
United States Geological Survey, Mail Stop 956, Reston, VA 22092, USA
c
CQ, Inc., 160 Quality Center Road, Homer City, PA 15748-0280, USA
Received 15 January 1998; received in revised form 1 June 1998

Abstract
Based on data from the US Geological Survey’s COALQUAL database, the mean concentration of mercury in coal is approximately
0.2 mg g ⫺1. Assuming the database reflects in-ground US coal resources, values for conterminous US coal areas range from 0.08 mg g ⫺1 for
coal in the San Juan and Uinta regions to 0.22 mg g ⫺1 for the Gulf Coast lignites. Recalculating the COALQUAL data to an equal energy
basis unadjusted for moisture differences, the Gulf Coast lignites have the highest values (36.4 lb of Hg/10 12 Btu) and the Hams Fork region
coal has the lowest value (4.8 lb of Hg/10 12 Btu). Strong indirect geochemical evidence indicates that a substantial proportion of the mercury
in coal is associated with pyrite occurrence. This association of mercury and pyrite probably accounts for the removal of mercury with the
pyrite by physical coal cleaning procedures. Data from the literature indicate that conventional coal cleaning removes approximately 37% of
the mercury on an equal energy basis, with a range of 0% to 78%. When the average mercury reduction value is applied to in-ground mercury
values from the COALQUAL database, the resulting ‘cleaned’ mercury values are very close to mercury in ‘as-shipped’ coal from the same
coal bed in the same county. Applying the reduction factor for coal cleaning to eastern US bituminous coal, reduces the mercury input load
compared to lower-rank non-cleaned western US coal. In the absence of analytical data on as-shipped coal, the mercury data in the
COALQUAL database, adjusted for cleanability where appropriate, may be used as an estimator of mercury contents of as-shipped coal.
䉷 1998 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Coal; COALQUAL; Mercury; Cleanability

The mercury concentration in coal has been a subject of
wide-spread discussion since the passage of the 1990 clean
air act amendment (CAAA). Under Title 3 of the CAAA, the
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to
assess the risk to human health from emissions of utility
power plants. The CAAA specifies 189 potential hazardous
air pollutants (HAPS) that EPA must consider. Among these
HAPS are trace elements, including mercury. The CAAA
focuses on mercury for special consideration because of its
potentially adverse impact on human health. Moreover,
because of its volatility, a high proportion of mercury passes
through conventional pollution control devices in coal-burn-
ing utility power plants [1]. Conventional physical coal
cleaning may be an effective method of reducing mercury
emissions from coal-burning utilities [2]. It is, therefore,
important to know mercury’s concentration and distribution
in coal and understand its behavior during coal beneficiation
or cleaning.
During the 1970s, the US Geological Survey (USGS)
* Corresponding author. Tel.: ⫹ 1-703-648-6412; Fax: ⫹ 1-703-648-
6419; e-mail: rbf@usgs.gov.
0016-2361/98/$ – see front matter 䉷 1998 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0016-236 1(98)00112-4
initiated the compilation of a nationwide coal information
database, the National Coal Resources Data System
(NCRDS), intended to assess the quantity and quality of
in-ground coal resources. It is the largest publicly available
database of its kind. Samples for NCRDS were taken to
represent the coal as it exists in the ground. The coal quality
database within the NCRDS, called the US geoCHEMical
Data Base (USCHEM), contains comprehensive analyses of
more than 13 000 channel and core samples of coal and
associated rocks. Among the data in the USCHEM database
are analytical values for about 60 elements, including
mercury and all the other elements cited in the CAAA.
The mercury concentrations in USCHEM were determined
by atomic absorption spectroscopy on air-dried coal
samples with a determination limit of 10 ppb and a typical
precision of 5–10% relative standard deviation [3].
A subset of USCHEM called COALQUAL [3] contains
analyses of approximately 7500 full bed core and channel
samples. Unlike the USCHEM database, COALQUAL does
not include analyses of rocks or isolated portions of a coal
bed. The COALQUAL data represent the entire thickness of
a coal bed, do not include interbedded rock (partings) and
48 B. Toole-O’Neil et al. / Fuel 78 (1999) 47–54

Fig. 1. Coal areas of the US.

have ash yields less than or equal to 33%. COALQUAL data
are representative of ‘in-the-ground’ coal quality where the
samples were collected and is the best available approxima-
tion of the distribution of US coal quality. Additionally,
trace element data in COALQUAL that are lower than
analytical detection limits (qualified) were assigned a
value 0.7 times the detection limit concentration [3]. The
COALQUAL data set may not be representative of the coal
burned by eastern and Midwestern utilities because about
80% of that coal is cleaned or washed before combustion,
reducing the concentration of many trace substances [4].
EPA, in its utility study required by the 1990 CAAA, used
a subset of USCHEM to estimate the trace element content
of the coal used for power generation.
The purpose of this paper is to describe the concentration
and distribution of mercury in US coal resources, to discuss
the probable modes of occurrence of mercury in coal, to
discuss the behavior of mercury during physical cleaning
of US coals and to show that the mercury data from the
COALQUAL are consistent with the mercury analyses
available on coal samples taken after coal cleaning (‘as-
shipped’) or at the power generating station (‘as-fired’).
1. Abundance and distribution of mercury
Fig. 1 shows the major coal areas in the conterminous
United States. Table 1 shows the minimum, maximum,
mean and standard deviation values for mercury concentra-
tions (in micrograms per gram, mg g ⫺1) for 14 selected coal
areas in the United States using the COALQUAL database.
The data indicate that Gulf Coast lignites have the highest
mean mercury concentration and coals in the San Juan and

Table 1
Statistics for mercury values (mg g ⫺1) for selected coal areas from the COALQUAL database (values on as-determined basis with a detection limit of 10 mg g ⫺1)

Coal area Mean (mg g ⫺1) Standard deviation Minimum (mg g ⫺1) Maximum (mg g ⫺1) Number of samples

Appalachian 0.20 0.19 0.003 2.9 4,399

Eastern Interior 0.10 0.07 0.007 0.4 301
Fort Union 0.13 0.12 0.007 1.2 300
Green River 0.09 0.05 0.003 1.0 418
Hams Fork 0.09 0.04 0.02 0.6 29
Gulf Coast 0.22 0.19 0.01 1.0 142
Pennsylvania anthracite 0.18 0.24 0.003 1.3 52
Powder River 0.10 0.09 0.003 1.4 616
Raton Mesa 0.09 0.10 0.01 0.5 40
San Juan River 0.08 0.11 0.003 0.9 194
South West Utah 0.10 0.09 0.01 0.5 42
Uinta 0.08 0.09 0.003 0.6 271
Western Interior 0.18 0.17 0.007 1.6 311
Wind River 0.18 0.19 0.007 0.8 42
 B. Toole-O’Neil et al. / Fuel 78 (1999) 47–54 49

Table 2
Mean values for samples in selected coal areas, ash yield (%), calorific value (Btu lb ⫺1), total moisture (%) on an as-received basis and mercury on equal energy
basis (lb/10 12 Btu). Conversion to metric: Btu lb ⫺1 × 2324.4 ˆ J kg ⫺1

Coal area No. of samples Ash yield (%) Calorific value (Btu lb ⫺1) Total moisture (%) Mercury (lb/10 12 Btu)

Appalachian 4,186 10.9 12 790 3.3 15.4

Eastern Interior 265 10.9 11 440 8.5 8.2
Fort Union 277 9.2 6360 36.9 21.8
Green River 293 10.8 9580 15.4 6.6
Gulf Coast 111 12.8 6490 34.8 36.4
Hams Fork 25 10.1 10 570 12.1 4.8
Pennsylvania anthracite 40 13.4 12 440 2.4 15.4
Powder River 492 7.6 8090 28.0 12.6
Raton Mesa 34 15.5 12 320 2.2 6.6
San Juan River 175 16.3 9610 12.4 7.7
SW Utah 42 12.4 9290 17.0 11.0
Uinta 232 10.2 10 800 11.0 7.3
Western Interior 328 5.9 10 970 8.9 16.1
Wind River 42 11.0 9560 16.8 18.7

Uinta regions have the lowest mean mercury content in the
United States.
The same 14 coal areas are shown in Table 2 with mean
values for as-received ash, calorific value, moisture and
mercury concentration. The concentration of mercury is
presented on an equal energy basis (‘input load’) in pounds
(lb)/10 12 Btu to provide a different method of comparison.
This is a simple calculation converting mg g ⫺1 values into
weight values and dividing by Btu lb ⫺1. Ideally, the differ-
ence in moisture content between as-received calorific value
and air-dried mercury concentrations should be accounted
for in the equal energy basis, but, was not done in this study.
We estimate the errors introduced to be generally less than
10%.
Generally, moisture in coal decreases and calorific value
increases as coal rank increases. Coal of higher rank has
higher calorific values, which means that less mass of coal
is required to produce a given thermal output. Reducing the
quantity of coal burned reduces the quantity of mercury and
other trace elements entering the boiler.

Table 3
Mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum mercury input loads (lb/10 12 Btu) for the top-producing coal beds of 1990 in regions: PRB, Powder River basin;
APP, Appalachian; EINT, Eastern Interior; GC, Gulf Coast; FU, Fort Union. Ranking of beds from Energy Information Agency (1990), data from USCHEM[3]

Coal bed(s) Mean Standard deviation Minimum Maximum No. of samples

Wyodak, Wyodak-Anderson 19.0 9.1 4.8 126. 36

(PRB)
Pittsburgh (APP) 13.9 5.4 0.2 84.6 128
No. 6 (EINT) 8.4 2.4 3.1 23.8 23
No. 9 (EINT) 6.2 2.6 0.9 20.7 16
Lower Kittanning (APP) 18.5 6.5 0.2 70.1 182

Wilcox Group (GC) 26.4 11.2 1.1 79.4 34

No. 2 Gas, Lower Elkhorn (APP) 8.6 3.5 0.9 32.8 35
Coalburg (APP) 4.6 1.9 0.4 19.4 25
Beulah-Zap (FU) 8.6 3.3 3.5 28.4 10
Chilton (APP) 7.0 3.5 1.5 12.6 2

Upper Freeport (APP) 25.1 9.1 0.4 32.0 226

Rosebud, Rosebud-McKay 8.6 3.3 3.5 28.4 10
(PRB)
Cedar Grove(APP) 9.0 4.3 0.4 32.0 15
Alma (APP) 11.9 6.3 0.4 55.8 18
Pocahontas No. 3 (APP) 6.8 3.7 0.4 47.0 50

Stockton-Lewiston (APP) 10.6 5.4 0.4 51.6 20

No. 12 (EINT) 10.4 4.5 2.6 24.9 7
Blue Creek (APP) 15.2 6.6 0.2 55.3 62
Winifrede (APP) 6.8 3.7 0.4 35.0 20
Middle Kittanning (APP) 17.8 7.4 0.2 115. 231
Lower Freeport (APP) 24.5 8.6 0.2 120. 100
50 B. Toole-O’Neil et al. / Fuel 78 (1999) 47–54
Based on the information in Table 2, the Gulf Coast
lignites may have the highest potential mercury emissions
and the Hams Fork coal from western Wyoming may have
the lowest mercury emissions on an equal energy basis. Of
the two major bituminous coal producing regions, samples
from the Appalachian region contain higher mercury
levels than the Eastern Interior. Samples from the Powder
River Basin are slightly higher in mercury levels than the
sub-bituminous coals of the San Juan Basin.
Table 3 contains summary information concerning
mercury content for the top-producing coal beds on an
equal energy basis (not adjusted for moisture differences)
using another subset of the USCHEM database. The Wilcox
Group coal samples from the Gulf Coast Region contain the
highest mercury content on an equal energy basis, closely
followed by Upper and Lower Freeport coal from the Appa-
lachian Field. Samples from the Coalburg bed from West
Virginia contain the lowest amount of mercury.
2. Modes of occurrence
The modes of occurrence of an element in coal can affect
the way the element behaves during coal cleaning, combus-
tion and leaching. Thus, the element’s mode of occurrence
has an important influence on its environmental and
technological impacts.
It is very difficult to determine the mode of occurrence for
mercury in coal, because mercury is present in relatively
low concentrations, commonly less than 0.5 mg g ⫺1.
Further, mercury volatizes at temperatures as low as
150⬚C [5] and, thus, is not amenable for analysis by methods
requiring heating of the sample. Because of these difficulties
there are relatively little direct data on the behavior and
modes of occurrence of mercury in coal.
The indirect data on the modes of occurrence of mercury
in coal include results from laboratory float-sink experi-
ments. Gluskoter et al. [6] and Ruch et al. [7] found that
mercury was concentrated in the heavy specific gravity frac-
tions. They interpreted these results to indicate an inorganic
association for mercury.
Filby et al. [8] estimated that 47% of the mercury in their
sample of coal was inorganically bound. In a study of the
mercury content of Illinois coal beds, Ruch et al. [9] exam-
ined the distribution of mercury in specific gravity fractions
of one coal. They found that a significant proportion of the
mercury in this sample was associated with the pyrite and
the remainder of the mercury (up to 50%) was in the lightest
specific gravity fraction (less than 1.26). Ruch et al. [9]
suggested that a part of the mercury in the light specific
gravity fraction may have an organic association and also
cautioned against making generalizations about the mode of
occurrence of mercury in coal. They noted that the coal
sample in which they found the highest mercury concentra-
tion contained only a trace of pyritic sulfur.
Tkack [10] physically separated the minerals in a
Czechoslovakian coal sample and found that mercury was
associated only with the late-stage (epigenetic) pyrite. He
suggested that the mercury was derived from hydrothermal
solutions percolating through fractures in the coal. The asso-
ciation of mercury with epigenetic pyrite has also been
demonstrated by Dvornikov [11] and by Dvornikov and
Tikhinenkova [12].
On the basis of extensive studies of Soviet coal, Dvorni-
kov [13, 14] proposed that mercury occurs as mercury
sulfide, metallic mercury and organometallic compounds.
The coal studied by Dvornikov had up to 20 mg g ⫺1 mercury
(more than 100 times higher than the average for US coal),
so that the suggested modes of occurrence may be typical of
coal that has experienced mercury mineralization [15].
Swaine [16] cites two earlier studies of Soviet coal. In one
study, mercury was found in pyrite. In the other study
mercury was considered to be mainly organically bound,
but, also to be present in sulfides and as a metallic mercury.
Porritt and Swaine [17] found that the correlation between
mercury and pyrite in Australian coal did not follow any
clear pattern. They concluded that some of the mercury is
associated with pyrite and some is associated with the
organic matter. They also suggest that mercury occurs in
the elemental form in coal.
Rare, micrometer-sized grains of mercury sulfides and
selenides were found in US coal (Finkelman RB, Unpub-
lished data, USGS). Cahill and Shiley [18] found mercury in
sphalerite from Illinois basin coal beds.
Mercury and arsenic appear to have similar behaviors
both in their distribution in raw coal and during coal clean-
ing [19]. For example, Finkelman et al. [20] found that
mercury had a strong positive statistical correlation with
arsenic and pyritic sulfur in the Upper Freeport coal.
However, in general the percentage of mercury removal is
less than that of arsenic [21]. This is perhaps caused by the
occurrence of mercury in accessory sulfides and selenides
that are difficult to remove by physical coal cleaning.
Using solvents to selectively remove elements from coal
is another method for determining modes of occurrence.
Palmer et al. (Palmer CA, Kolker A, Finkelman RB, Mrocz-
kowski SJ, Willett JC, Kolb KC, Bullock Jr. JH, unpub-
lished data) removed 35–75% ( ⬃ 60%) of the mercury
from 10 US bituminous coals using nitric acid. Similar
amounts of arsenic were also leached from each sample.
They concluded that mercury and arsenic were both asso-
ciated with pyrite. They extracted lesser amounts of
mercury (0–25%) from a US subbituminous coal and an
Australian bituminous coal. Dale et al. [22] also used selec-
tive leaching on several Australian coals and concluded that
mercury had a predominant organic association.
From the above discussion it is apparent that there is little
direct evidence as to the modes of occurrence of mercury in
coal. Nevertheless, there is strong circumstantial evidence
to indicate that a substantial proportion of mercury in coal is
associated with pyrite. Much of this mercury appears to be
in late-stage (epigenetic) pyrite. Some of the mercury in
 B. Toole-O’Neil et al. / Fuel 78 (1999) 47–54 51

Table 4
Calorific value and mercury concentration for raw and clean coal on a dry basis, mercury reduction on an equal energy basis from cleaning[24]. See text for
explanation

Coal bed Calorific Hg raw coal (mg g ⫺1) Calorific Hg clean coal (mg g ⫺1) Hg percent
value raw value reduction
coal clean coal (equal energy
(Btu lb ⫺1) (Btu lb ⫺1) basis)

Central Appalachian A 10 401 0.09 14 827 0.10 22

Central Appalachian B 9722 0.12 14 698 0.11 39
Illinois No. 6 9745 0.14 13 758 0.08 60
Pittsburgh A 12 634 0.15 13 841 0.11 33
Pittsburgh B 11 079 0.14 14 205 0.09 50
Pittsburgh C 10 572 0.14 14 105 0.13 30
Pittsburgh D 9678 0.10 13 220 0.12 12
Pittsburgh E 10 183 0.10 13 756 0.08 41
Pittsburgh 10 093 0.10 14 099 0.08 42
Pittsburgh 11 164 0.13 13 438 0.11 27
Pittsburgh 13 428 0.13 13 956 0.12 14
Lower Kittanning 11 689 0.44 14 454 0.34 38
Sewickley 9804 0.18 12 725 0.18 25
Illinois No. 6 10 308 0.12 12 397 0.13 12
Kentucky No. 9 and 14 11 647 0.16 12 969 0.14 24
Pratt/Utley 11 121 0.28 13 872 0.22 39
Pratt 10 582 0.29 13 050 0.28 22
Pratt 10 686 0.34 13 717 0.24 45
Utley 12 578 0.34 13 570 0.27 26
Upper Freeport 8273 0.70 13 599 0.25 78
Upper Freeport 8273 0.70 13 944 0.28 76
Illinois 2,3,5 12 112 0.24 13 855 0.20 28
Illinois 2,3,5 12 047 0.24 13 696 0.14 50
Kentucky No. 11 9074 0.15 13 777 0.12 48

Average 0.23 0.16 37

coal may be associated with the organic constituents and
with other minerals.
3. The effect of coal cleaning
Conventional methods of cleaning coal exploit a differ-
ence in a physical characteristic between coal and mineral
matter to effect a separation. Because a physical process is
used, the minerals to be removed must be physically sepa-
rated or liberated from the coal [23]. Most cleaning methods
separate the coal and minerals based upon density differ-
ences. In some cases, the apparent density differences are
too small for practical use. To help anticipate the likelihood
of trace element removal, it would be useful to know the
modes of occurrence of the elements.
Table 4 contains data on the reduction of mercury by
conventional coal cleaning [24]. Samples were obtained
from commercial cleaning plants or commercial-scale
cleaning tests using conventional cleaning equipment. A
comparison of the concentration of mercury in raw coal
samples versus cleaned coal samples shows that in 20 of
24 cases mercury was reduced by cleaning and in one case it
was unchanged. There were three cases in which cleaning
increased the concentration of mercury in the cleaned coal.
This can occur when the mercury is recovered in the clean
coal fraction, either because it is physically or chemically
bound to the coal. Coal cleaning decreased the concentra-
tion of mercury in this suite of samples from 0.23 mg g ⫺1 to
0.16 mg g ⫺1, a 37% average reduction (Table 4).
The fairly wide range of effectiveness of coal cleaning for
mercury removal could be caused in part by differences in
the modes of occurrence of the element in coal. For samples
in which mercury is either organically bound or present in
fine-grained minerals disseminated through the organic
fraction of the coal, conventional methods of cleaning
may not remove the mercury. In fact, the mercury concen-
tration may increase as ash-forming minerals are removed,
thereby increasing the relative organic content of the
cleaned coal. If the mercury is present in relatively large
grained pyrite, most conventional methods of cleaning will
provide a large decrease in mercury concentration.
Evidence also exists that the specific cleaning technology
employed impacts the relative change in concentration of
mercury with cleaning [2].
Table 4 contains information on the change in mercury
concentration (mg g ⫺1) during coal cleaning and the percent
mercury reduction on an equal energy basis. As mentioned
above, presenting coal data on an equal energy basis makes
comparisons of data from different areas simpler. Mercury
52 B. Toole-O’Neil et al. / Fuel 78 (1999) 47–54

Table 5
Comparison of mercury concentration data from various sources (references cited)

Coal bed COALQUAL Adjusted a Set 1 b Set 2 c Set 3 d Set 4 e

(mg g 1⫺) COALQUAL (mg g ⫺1) (mg g ⫺1) (mg g ⫺1) (mg g ⫺1)
(mg g ⫺1)

Illinois
Herrin No. 6 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.09
Herrin No. 6 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.70
Herrin No. 6 0.09 0.06 0.06
Herrin No. 6 0.09 0.06 0.07
Average for Illinois 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.09

Pennsylvania
Pittsburgh 0.25 0.17 0.12 0.12 0.14
Pittsburgh 0.16 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.15
Sewickley 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.13
Upper Kittanning 0.24 0.17 0.27 0.12
Average for Pennsylvania 0.20 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.14

Average for all cases 0.14 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.12

a
Raw coal values reduced by multiplying by 0.70; bas-shipped coal samples from EPRI study [24]; cset of 1500 sample analyses [25]; ddata from 71 samples
of Pittsburgh and 5 Illinois no. 6 coal samples [23]; eliterature compilation of data by EPRI [26].

reduction is calculated on an equal energy basis using the reduction calculation is valid, the mercury content
calorific value and mercury concentrations (on the same would be reduced to 15.9 lb/10 12 Btu, slightly less than that
analytical basis) with the formula: of the Wyodak bed, a major Powder River Basin coal bed.

Percent Reduction
ˆ ‰…RC=RH† ⫺ …CC=CH†Š=…RC=RH† × 100Š
where: RC, mercury concentration in the raw coal; RH,
calorific value of the raw coal; CC, mercury concentration
in the clean coal; CH, calorific value of the clean coal.
The information in Table 4 can be used to estimate the
change in mercury with cleaning. The average reduction of
0.63 × raw coal concentration (37% reduction) can be used
as a first approximation of the change in concentration on an
equal energy basis. The percentage change in reduction
captures the whole effect of coal cleaning by showing
both the increase in the calorific value from removal of
the ash-forming minerals and the decrease in mercury
concentration by removal of the mercury-bearing minerals.
Coal from the Appalachian and Eastern Interior regions is
generally cleaned before combustion. In contrast, Powder
River Basin coals are not cleaned. Applying the reduction
calculation to allow for the effect of cleaning to the
COALQUAL data in Table 2 reduces the mean value for
Appalachian mercury concentration from 15.4 to 9.7 lb/
10 12 Btu and the mean Eastern Interior mercury concentra-
tion from 8.2 to 5.1 lb/10 12 Btu. When the impact of coal
cleaning is considered, coals from the Appalachian region
may be lower in mercury content than coal from the Powder
River Basin on an equal energy basis unadjusted for moist-
ure differences.
In Table 3, the mean mercury value for raw coal samples
from the Upper Freeport bed (Northern Appalachian
Region) is relatively high (25.1 lb/10 12 Btu). However, if
4. Evaluation of the coal cleaning factor
The coal cleaning factor developed in the previous
section is based on relatively little data because complete
sets of data on the effect of coal cleaning on trace elements
are rare. However, this factor may be useful as a first
approximation to estimate mercury removal during coal
cleaning. To determine the effectiveness of this modifica-
tion factor, a comparison of the raw coal, coal ‘adjusted’ for
cleaning and as-shipped or ‘as-received’ coal concentrations
was done in the following manner.
First, four sources of data were identified that would be
useful. The first set of data was from a study by EPRI [25],
where 123 ‘as-shipped’ coal samples were analyzed for
mercury content by atomic fluorescence spectroscopy
using detailed quality assurance and quality control proce-
dures. The data set comprises 74 bituminous coal samples,
47 sub-bituminous samples and 7 lignite samples. The
second set of data was gathered from industry [26]. The
data comprises 1,530 sets of analyses of coal samples aggre-
gated by coal rank and coal area. The third set of data is
from previously published data by DeVito [27] for coal beds
in Pennsylvania and Illinois, for which 71 samples of the
Pittsburgh bed coal and 5 Illinois #6 coal samples were
analyzed. The fourth set of data is from other literature
data compiled by EPRI [28].
The data sources used reported mercury concentrations
on a weight basis, not concentrations on an equal energy
basis. There was not sufficient information to convert the
data to an equal energy basis. Therefore the comparison
 B. Toole-O’Neil et al. / Fuel 78 (1999) 47–54
could only be shown using concentration (mg g ⫺1) values
and the change in concentration from Table 4 (0.16/0.23 or
70%) is used. This approach is only intended to evaluate a
procedure using the best available information. As
previously discussed, mercury concentrations are best
considered on an equal energy basis.
Also, in order to minimize the impact of naturally occur-
ring variability in the mercury content of coal, data sets were
examined to isolate samples that are geologically and
geographically similar. Eight cases were identified between
the COALQUAL and EPRI data [25], where both sets of
data had measured mercury concentrations for the same bed
in the same county. In cases where either sets of data had
more than one sample in the same bed and county, an
average value was calculated.
Table 5 summarizes the results of this comparison. In
interpreting this data, it is important to recognize that
these analyses are from samples from the same bed and
county taken at different periods in time and not splits of
the same samples analyzed by two different laboratories.
Therefore some of the difference between individual
samples could be caused by natural coal variability, as
well as analytical reproducibility.
Comparison of the average concentrations by coal bed
shows remarkably good agreement between samples
collected at different times and for different purposes. We
conclude that the COALQUAL data, adjusted for the effect
of coal cleaning, are a good first estimate of mercury
concentration in as-shipped or as-received coal. The Penn-
sylvania coal data (Table 5) shows more variability but the
agreement between the average concentrations is still quite
good.
5. Summary
The concentration of mercury in coal samples from the
US Geological Survey’s COALQUAL database averages
approximately 0.2 mg g ⫺1 for in-ground coal in the conter-
minous US. Average values range from 0.08 for coal
samples from the San Juan and Uinta regions to 0.22 in
the Gulf Coast lignites. On an equal energy basis, the Gulf
Coast lignites have the highest values (36.4 lb of Hg/
10 12 Btu) and the Hams Fork region samples have the lowest
values (4.8 lb of Hg/10 12 Btu).
Although there is little direct evidence as to the modes of
occurrence of mercury in coal, there is strong circumstantial
evidence to indicate that a substantial proportion of the
mercury is associated with pyrite. Much of the mercury
may be in late-stage epigenetic pyrite, offering the
opportunity for physical removal of this mercury.
Data from the literature indicate that conventional coal
cleaning tests removed on average approximately 37% of
the mercury on an equal energy basis. When the average
mercury reduction value is applied to in-ground mercury
values from the COALQUAL database, the resulting
53
mercury concentrations are in agreement with mercury in
‘as-shipped’ coal that has undergone cleaning from the same
bed in the same county.
The COALQUAL database is an extremely valuable
source of information for the raw or in-ground trace element
concentration of US coal and if adjusted for the effect of
coal cleaning in appropriate coals, can provide a first esti-
mate of ‘as-shipped’ mercury concentration in coal. It could
be used as a first estimate if data from as-shipped coal
samples were not available from new coal regions. The
mean mercury concentration of the eastern US coal may
be less than 0.22 mg g ⫺1, if the impact of physical coal
cleaning is considered.
Physical coal cleaning is a viable method of reducing
mercury entering the combustion system and therefore redu-
cing mercury entering the atmosphere. Physical coal clean-
ing has the added advantage of removing the mercury before
possible release into the atmosphere by coal combustion.
References
[1] Moore T. EPRI Journal 1994;19(1):6–15.
[2] Akers DJ, Dospoy RL. Minerals and metallurgical processing. Littleton:
Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, 1993;10(3):124–127.
[3] Bragg LJ, Oman JK, Tewalt SJ, Oman CL, Rega NH, Washington
PM, Finkelman RB. US Geological Survey Coal Quality (COAL-
QUAL) Database: V. 2.0, 1998, CD-ROM 97–134.
[4] Akers DJ, Dospoy RL, Raleigh CE, Toole-O’Neil B. Am Chem Soc
Proc 1994; 39(2):524–529.
[5] Finkelman RB, Palmer CA, Krasnow MR, Aruscavage PJ, Sellers
GA, Dulong FT. Energy Fuels 1990;4:755–767.
[6] Gluskoter HJ, Ruch RR, Miller WJ, Cahill RA, Dreher GB, Kuhn JK.
Illinois State Geological Survey Circular 1977;499.
[7] Ruch RR, Gluskoter HJ, Shimp NF. Illinois State Geological Survey
Environment Geology Notes 1974;72.
[8] Filby RH, Shah KR, Sautter CA. J Radioanalyt Chem 1977;37:693–704.
[9] Ruch RR, Gluskoter HJ, Kennedy EJ. Illinois State Geological Survey
Environment Geology Notes 1971;43.
[10] Tkack BI. Geochem Int 1975;11:470.
[11] Dvornikov AG. Geochem Int 1965;2:526.
[12] Dvornikov AG, Tikhinenkova EG. Geochem Int 1973;10:1168.
[13] Dvornikov AG. Geol Zh 1981;41:96–104.
[14] Dvornikov AG. Dokl Akad Nauk SSSR 1981;257:1214–1216.
[15] Swaine DJ. Trace elements in coal. London: Butterworths, 1990.
[16] Swaine DJ. In Tugarinov AI, editor. Rec Contrib Geochem Analyt
Chem. Jerusalem: Israel Prog. for Sci. Translations, 1975:539–550.
[17] Porritt RE, Swaine DJ. Aust Inst Fuel Conf 1976:18.1-18.9.
[18] Cahill RA, Shiley RH. In: Proc Int Conf Coal Sci, Gluckauf Gmbh,
Essen, 1981:751–755.
[19] Finkelman RB. US Geol Survey Open-File Rep 1981;81–99:300.
[20] Finkelman RB, Stanton RW, Cecil CB, Minkin JA. Am Chem Soc
Prepr Fuel Chem Div 1979:236–241.
[21] Fonseca AG, Tumati PR, DeVito MS, Lancet MS, Meenan GF. SME/
AIME Preprint 1993.
[22] Dale LS, Chapman JF, Lavrencic SA. Proc 7th Int Conf. Coal Sci, vol.
2, 1993:313–316.
[23] Leonard JW. Coal preparation 5th ed. Littleton, CO: SME, 1991.
[24] Akers DJ. In: Environmental aspects of trace elements in coal, chapter
6. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1995:93–110
[25] Bloom N, Prestbo E. Proc of the 11th Annual Int Pittsburgh Coal Conf
1994:563–568.
[26] Platt J. Characterizing the trace element content of domestic coals.
54 B. Toole-O’Neil et al. / Fuel 78 (1999) 47–54

EPRI TR-104868, Section 3. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research [28] Wetherold RG, Orr DA, Leonard JM, Toole-O’Neil B. Proc EPRI/
Institute, 1995:8–10. DOE Int Conf Managing Hazardous Particulate Air Pollutants EPRI
[27] DeVito M, Rosendale L, Conrad V. Fuel Proc Tech 1994;39(1–3): TR-105749, Section 3, Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research
87–106. Institute, 1997:101–115.